Crazy Tuvok

Nonsense. I played DA on a console with friendly fire on and w/o the quasi-iso POV and FF worked fine and added quite a bit to the tactics of combat, limited as they may have generally been. I applaud the notion of having these things on toggles, but removing them altogether and adding insult to injury with the justification given - absurd.

Forget licensing issues and Sega, what I would like to know is does Obsidian have any desire to make a sequel? It's possible the licensing stuff could get worked out. I wonder if the will is there. And yes, more than any game in recent memory I would like a sequel.

And at least with the hacking game if it doesn't look like you are going to succeed you can abort and start again. Lockpicking and door codes are thankfully bypassable with EMPS cuz otherwise... And no loss in XP for using the EMPs for which I am grateful. First playthrough I maxed out sabotage and had the best "tech" gear and none of the minigames got noticeably easier for me. The hacking mini-game I always have found the easiest actually. None however did I ever much like.

I kind of learned to pick the patterns by squinting my eyes, eventually. But I'm (at least officially) not retarded, and it was pretty painful. But you always have the option for bypassing them with the emp, so... Haven't played anything a in a couple of days. Vacillating between replaying ME2 again, trying arkham asylum or taking another shot at Alpha Protocol... If you haven't played it yet and you are even remotely a fan of Batman Arkham Asylum. It is pretty effing terrific.

I have only heard bits and pieces of what was changed and left out of the original script. Would love to see it.

Delaying it until April probably has more to do with financials than development. Moving it to a new *fiscal* year. I can't imagine they are going to do too much more work on it in the added time as they were probably all set for a March release until some numbercruncher looked at the books and did his arcane accounting **** and saw it made more sense for release in the next fiscal year. A month. Hardly a delay at all so no big deal really as far as satisfying the urge to play it.

You mean like Jagged Alliance 2 and Homeworld?! Yes, you can take solace in the fact that you aren't the only one doing it wrong. Other people were also called out on it, though. Try to think outside the box instead of just listing any game you like. Fair enough. I admit that my posts were less in keeping with the OP and more with tone of the thread wherein some pretty well received (critically) games have been mentioned. Still you are right. By virtue of the OP Grim Fandango in absolutely no way qualifies.

You mean like Jagged Alliance 2 and Homeworld?!

Oh come on... Critical acclaim no doubt. But no one ever played it. "Total cumulative worldwide sales are estimated between 100,000 and 500,000 units" Worldwide. If that is not underrated then what are we talking about?

Let me second Stranger's Wrath. Loved this game. And FO:T - in need of a JA-like fix, this for me was the game. "Underrated" being a nebulous term (do we mean sales, reviews, fans..?) I'll just add a few that I rarely hear people recommend or that have not entered gaming lore. Grim Fandango Farenheit Okami and hell yes Alpha Protocol

I'm on my second playthrough now and this game does not just have replayablility - it is better the second time around. Not too many games out there have the former much less the latter. I am seeing things, choices, turns of events that I never saw first time through. I fear no hyberbole in saying this game is a masterpiece. Yes it is flawed. But it is brilliant. I don't think I have ever played a game like this. C & C indeed. To date Arcanum has been the pinnacle of replayability. AP blows it out of the water. GOTY? Absolutely. At this rate this game may make my top ten of all time.

Surprised as well that people were bored with Uncharted 2. Granted the jungle in the beginning is the worst part of the game, but I still thought it pretty damn good. For its genre UC2 is fantastic and has some of the best action set pieces in any action game ever. The helicopter fight in Tibet, the train ride, the car chase. Really the only thing that outright sucks in the game are the "puzzles". An insulting waste of time, no matter how pretty everything looks. But everything else - a terrific action game with some truly well done characters.

Infamous was pretty fun. As far as the dead drops go I thought that a good bit of design actually (like the shards). It allowed me an excuse to explore the city and accomplish something at the same time (something either important to the story or critical for the game). To date in open world games in my experience only Rockstar has ever gotten this right. A big open world is only interesting for a while, no matter how cool looking if there is nothing to do in it. Again, Rockstar has this done perfectly, but Infamous I thought did a nice job of it. Agree totally about the girlfriend and I felt the same way about Zeke. I hated them both. Cole I liked, I didn't find his delivery too deadpan or B-movie badass. The pedestrian character models were terrible but yeah the enemies were pretty neat. And the comic book cut scenes were nice too. The side quests were meh, but I really liked the RPG-lite elements of the game. And Cole's movement was superb. Getting around the city is a blast. Good combat , cool powers, nice looking ruined cityscape. All in all definitely a good purchase and am actually fairly excited to see what they do with the sequel improving on what I think is a pretty good foundation.

Romance and gifts I'll give you, but done well personal quests can be outstanding. Learning Dak'kon's history in PS:T (which is a personal quest of a decidedly PS:T nature) was terrific. If you have never had high enough WIS to finish it I highly recommend it. Morrigan's in DA lead to a pretty interesting choice. One of the better choices in the game I thought. Like combat or art assets it is all about how not whether they are done.

Too NPC-centric? Not sure what you mean here with this. Don't like em don't take em. In DA if you take dog, and Sten your NPC interaction will be at a minimum. Most CRPGs are not heavy on the NPC/companion interaction and those that have it I think have done it pretty well. I loved the banter in BG2 and did anyone play PS:T solo? FOs, Arcanum Wizardry, KOTOR 1 and 2, BG1 and 2 etc...all had NPCs I liked (and wanted to know more about) and that were useful to have around. Some were more fascinating than others, some funnier than others and some downright annoying. Like real people. I also think its a good design trick in that it makes the world in which you are adventuring seem bigger than just you and your problems. As if there are lives and adventures going on all around you, a world that was here before you and will be here after you. *shrug* Companions (in general) work for me and I like them in games. Could do with some of the romance toned down tho.

Actually it makes a lot of sense. I think so too. In a game world where life is cheap and power talks the temptation will be to meta-game and choose whatever path gets you the bonuses/xp/treasure/whatever that you can milk from your companions. I don't mind this if you want to play a manipulative PC whose goal is to survive or flourish. I would like to see this have consequences tho. BG2 had hints of this wherein certain party members would leave, put for my $ it was way too sparsely implemented. AP has this in that there are bonuses for RP'ing a PC as you see fit - kill/spare, liked/hated by NPCs etc. I would like to see a more fully realized version tho. If designers are looking to create believable companions and not just additional swords and inventory slots there should be consequences to your actions in your relationship with them. And I for one would kind of like those consequences to be more severe - the good path for instance should be harder. But most games that take this route take it right back - "will you sacrifice 1 point of Dexerity to save your imperiled friend or let them suffer? You will sacrifice it? Bing! You get +2 to Strength or since you are so selfless here is the Sword of the Just..." To hell with that. Choices w/o consequences or choices that lead only to versions of the same consequence are meaningless and make a game a whole lot mroe shallow and by virtue of that not nearly as much fun. Moreover, I think there are a good many gamers (more than just hc CRPG nuts) that would like this, tho this only (wild) speculation on my part.

I don't know. I think it would be a pretty great game that made the path you choose have some dire consequences; like combat just got a whole lot trickier because you choose a noble path and the evil (but powerful) mage will no longer fight at your side. This could of course be balanced with some kind of longer term reward for your decency but I would really like it to be a tough choice to have to stick to my principles knowing full well that the cost is high. The good path/evil wizard companion being a simple example.

Keep, some XP and a cleric who you can let movein. He is a shop with a discount but nothing special (items are no great shakes). Planar sphere - apprentices you train who can make some ok swag, nothing mind blowing but as I recall not entirely useless. I usually played with the mod that lets have all the keeps regardless of PC class. I think the Ranger keep has the best side quests. The bard keep felt a bit out of place with just about every build I have ever played. Still I liked having all the extra adventures.

Said in other threads and I'll necro post to add my thanks to Obsidian for AP. A brilliant game. I find myself walking home from the train thinking of a different build to play or what choices I will make differently on my next playthrough. Thanks again.

You know when you put it this way, I can see your point. I haven't played any of the ""shooter with superficial RPG aesthetics" (nicely put btw) except Bioshock which I never thought was put forth as an RPG. Given that, my approach was that of a much more straight forward RPG. I can see how given the experience of a Mass Effect or whatever that yeah AP would really confound your expectations. Of course those things are exactly what made it work for me. I'm not gonna nitpick with you on this. I just didn't see the weapon scaling as problematic (especially on "Normal" wherein it is damn near impossible to get killed. Got to the end of SA on Normal and restarted the whole game so that firefights would have some damn challenge). Still your points are well taken. Pity then. An excellent RPG betrayed by its RPG-ness.

That seems reasonable on the face of it, unless one is reminded one is playing an RPG. To me it scaled no differently than CRPGS always do. It is the fight of your life to clear out the kobold mines at the beginning of BG1. By end game they are nuisance at best. No one complains, "but I have sword, I can clearly see my character swinging it and yet the lil bastard is still alive." I'll concede that (for whatever reasons) CRPGs with gunplay seem to suffer more from (some) players' inability to abstract the mechanics of the game from the on-screen action. "I shot him three times in the head and he is still alive! Busted stupid game!" But this is not particular to AP. Maybe if it had been 3rd person ISO people would have any easier time with it (tho I am certain I have heard similar complaints about FO et al) And with apparently no fear of repeating myself, SA could be frustrating if it were a shooter. If played as an RPG, seems like a pretty good first "dungeon" to me.

Agree that while "understandable" that people were frustrated that the game didn't function as the shooter they expected it to be it is hardly "fanboy" to attribute it to stupidity on the part of the player. Their stupidity is understandable. I don't see how much more obvious it could have been that "the more points you invest in something the better you will be at that thing". Forgetting even the fact that this is how an RPG works, you can effing see in advance what point investment gets you. Put in x levels of pistol and damage and accuracy increase. Or a special ability becomes available. Short of putting in a tutorial that demonstrates in game what this means from a playing perspective, how much more obvious could it have been? Not getting this is akin to saying "stealth is impossible" because you have Mike in the crouching animation , put no points into stealth and are wearing tac armor and you are detected by enemies. "But he's in the stealth crouch! It's broken!" Perhaps this is not immediately obvious in the Saudi levels (tho I am being generous - it is pretty obvious), but again like most games everywhere and CRPGs since..always, the early levels are not as punishing on untrained/unskilled/low level charatcers. Claiming you don't like this system is one thing - play a shooter or Splinter Cell not an RPG. But a failure to grasp the mechanics and implications - that is a bit thick. But as you say, understandable.

I know there are already a few threads like this but I was going to start one just to say thank you to Obsidian for this game. I thought it was phenomenal and I wonder what game others have been playing. I can say for sure based on some of the criticisms I 've seen around that a whole lot of folks formed very quick impressions and never let them go nor did they play the game through nor (incredibly) did they play it as the RPG it is. Honestly, I think his game something of a masterpiece and it has moved Obsidian into a category they were heading towards after MoTB - I'll buy their stuff reviews be damned. Not guaranteeing I'll like everything, but they have earned my purchase to see for myself. The only other studio that ever had my respect like Obsidian does was Troika. I hope Obsidian does not have the same fate. Anyway. Thanks to everyone for this game. One of the best I've played in a long time. Even more eagerly awaiting FO:NV.